Copyleft/guide
6
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Wordsmithing and typo fixes.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Bradley M. Kuhn 2014-03-18 16:42:04 -04:00
parent 07828daf38
commit 8399b0a796
1 changed files with 9 additions and 9 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

18
gpl-lgpl.tex
View file

@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ access is and should remain unregulated and unrestricted.
\medskip \medskip
Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by Thus, the GPLv2 protects users fair and unregulated use rights precisely by
not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom not attempting to cover them. Furthermore, the GPLv2 ensures the freedom
to run specifically by stating the following: to run specifically by stating the following:
\begin{quote} \begin{quote}
''The act of running the Program is not restricted.'' ''The act of running the Program is not restricted.''
@ -1020,21 +1020,21 @@ Thus, users are explicitly given the freedom to run by \S 0.
\medskip \medskip
The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used The bulk of \S 0 not yet discussed gives definitions for other terms used
throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on throughout. The only one worth discussing in detail is ``work based on
the Program.'' The reason this definition is particularly interesting is the Program''. The reason this definition is particularly interesting is
not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but not for the definition itself, which is rather straightforward, but
because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@. because it clears up a common misconception about the GPL\@.
The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a The GPL is often mistakenly criticized because it fails to give a
definition of ``derivative work.'' In fact, it would be incorrect and definition of ``derivative work''. In fact, it would be incorrect and
problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in problematic if the GPL attempted to define this. A copyright license, in
fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This fact, has no control over what may or may not be a derivative work. This
matter is left up to copyright law, not the licenses that utilize it. matter is left up to copyright law and the courts --- not the licenses that utilize it.
It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear It is certainly true that copyright law as a whole does not propose clear
and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative and straightforward guidelines for what is and is not a derivative
software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not software work under copyright law. However, no copyright license --- not
even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court even the GNU GPL --- can be blamed for this. Legislators and court
opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases. opinions must give us guidance to decide the border cases.
\section{GPLv2 \S 1: Verbatim Copying} \section{GPLv2 \S 1: Verbatim Copying}